cq_zones_lookupLook up a CQ zone by number (1-40) to get its name, ADIF DXCC entities, subdivisions, boundaries, codes, and source citation.
One CQ zone: its name and every entity, subdivision and boundary CQ lists for it, with ADIF codes and the citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | A CQ zone number, 1 to 40. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the retrieval nature and scope of returned fields, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when a code has no matching zone. Adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource. Structure is fine, though the dense list of returned fields makes it slightly harder to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly conveys the lookup scope and the fields returned. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, only lacking routing guidance versus siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single 'code' parameter with its 1–40 range. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource ('One CQ zone') and enumerates the returned data (name, entities, subdivisions, boundaries, ADIF codes, citation), making the purpose concrete. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from cq_zones_search or cq_zones_codes_for, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the description that this is the single-zone detail lookup, and nothing names the alternatives cq_zones_search or cq_zones_codes_for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.